Many words exist for the reason of their usefulness and the need for them to be in place. Just like how weapons are always at their corner for their time of use to come forth, the rabbilization of these words are bubaline when at their use. It is common among personalities of illogical minds to prove radical and sensible. This is why helpful thinking minds need to take the bow and shot the arrow to their target.

Overtime, we have put in our thunderbolt to ring the bell atop which seems like a barbarian cruelty. Many steps have been taken to bare the breast in different ways. We have sometimes been faced with a volley of mortar fire either in a criticism basket or a domestic war drum. This approach has been a topical issue of radicalism.

In this age of managerial sword drill with the managed, we tend to demand for the transparency of the claims of those in the chambers of power. It is a needed idea not to be kneaded away that everyone in power owe it to his citizen of his openness, even if he is an obscured. The position of leadership demands a lot and part of someone’s life has to be on the line to save one’s integrity, dignity and power to do and undo. An action moved toward assuring a stable pillar exists is radicalism.

The technicality of radicalism is followed by some extreme treatments by the opposite citizens or auto-citizens of the same locality. Breathing at times can be defined as a radical movement against a lifeless state. According to ScienceDaily, “Many people believe that free radicals, the sometimes toxic molecules produced by our bodies as we process oxygen are the culprit behind aging. Yet a number of studies in recent years have produced evidence that the opposite may be true.” Siegfried Hekimi, a professor in McGill’s Department of Biology said “people believe that free radicals are damaging and cause aging, but the so-called free radical theory of aging is incorrect”. This is part of an argument that students lose thought on as they go into the extreme on fronting the idea that radicalism has little sense. It is only left to many to be sensible when been radical.

Furthermore, the loquacious state of an empty barrel can also be radical. This is one of the factors contributing to the death of this set of consonants that make up a root. A thoroughgoing person is expected to be fully armed and able to face a thorough queue of challenges, but it has been a moment of suffocation for this act and its exile seconds is reading so fast against the normal. There has been misconstruction between extremism, radicalism and terrorism. These three brothers have been termed as suckers of one mother’s breast, but the wide differences are as they have been abused.

In a layman’s context, terrorism disciplines in killing the innocent, guilty and altogether, the massive business of terror. It may be handled with any weapon however small. Terror does not develop to a limited space. An extremist is succinctly a bloke or a big gun who takes every business farther than its boundary. He may develop to a terrorist in the later seconds, but this act can be cynical if he get defeat my massive opinion. An extremist can also be involved in killing, harming and even stealing. But the difference is that he might kill or harm an innocent person who lives in the same cottage along with his fanatical partner. Whereas, radicalism does not deal with these duo.

A reference to Peter Waterman reveals that radicalization is about a clear moral or political commitment. It is usually phrased in term of opposition to imperialism. It is a medium that brings about change to a system which may be either by force or a diplomatic radicalism. “Radicalists” according to Martin Luther King Jnr. must have exhausted some steps to prove their radicalism before taking other actions. But it is the reverse today, where this modus operandi that suppresses the power of forceful takers has been defined as forceful itself. Thus, people in power tend to kill the action in people, suspend the mouthpieces and make their citizens as silent as eighteenth century grave.

To divert to the earlier discussed, religious radicalism is one of the aches that bastardize the health of this weapon. The BBC stated on December, 2013 that the radical Islamists are active across northern half of Africa. They used to control much of southern and central Somalia, meting out harsh punishments based on Islamic law such as stoning for adulterers and amputating the hands of thieves. The Bokoharam must have been agreed as the vanguards for the protection of muslims if they had not used terrorizing weapons in the past, but the case is the reverse as they tend to be radical to save but are irrationally killing, even their brothers. This action kills radicalism by the alternative definition given to it. The killings by the Christian militia are also a road to “illegitimatisation”. On May 29, 2017, 30 civilians were killed over the weekend according to U.N officials and aid workers.

These are swan songs sung in the ears of the masses that kill radicalism. A new book of radicalism has to be opened in either ways- either to repeat what it is supposed to be or to teach in another perspective. A radical thinker in correspondence to culture wars develops and propagates practical methods of challenging and changing the status quo. He engages with the very core of his materials and changes the key beliefs we all have about the way the world is and what it should be. Instead of an outdated mode of bringing about reform, radicalism places itself a one which cannot escape being injured, but will continue with the preaching of the need for change with anything other than war.

The danger of killing radicalism is not farfetched. It is a practical reversal against positivity. Just like removing soldiers from the city fence, we know danger is near. Against oppression, if diplomacy should be the approach, it must be followed with all seriousness. The death of radicalism can make the land to remain unfertile and odour of shame can spread all over. The danger of killing this step is effective as killing terrorism. The proportionality of this deformation is inverse to a standard and meaningful way of life. This also contributes to political death, unreasonable desire and an indefensible decision. David Platt said “I could not help but think that somewhere along the way we had missed what was radical about our faith and replaced it with what is comfortable.

About UCJ UI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *